On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 18:45:07 +0000, mark put finger to keyboard and
typed:

"Mark Goodge" wrote in message
shouse.net...
PRS has no contract with Sky in respect of end-users viewing their
programmes. PRS charges Sky for the right to use music in programmes
just like they charge any other broadcaster. As Sky is a commercial
broadcaster, their PRS fees will be based on revenue.

This:
http://www.mcps-prs-alliance.co.uk/

then specifically this..

http://www.mcps-prs-alliance.co.uk/r...&subjectId=114

Indeed. Those are the fees payed by the broadcaster for the right to
broadcast copyright material.

Even for a normal TV or radio, there's no moral reason why you should
be required to pay. The broadcaster is already paying for the right to
broadcast the music, and it makes no difference to them whether the
audience consists of a hundred different receivers each listened to by
one person or one receiver in a pub listened to by a hundred people.


It makes a difference to the owner of the copyright though...

In what way?

It's the same number of listeners, and the same number of broadcasts.
The only difference is that there are fewer items of reception
equipment involved in the case of a broadcast received in a pub as
opposed to individual homes. Why should using less kit make it more
expensive to license?

Sky (and other subscription channels) are slightly different, as their
business model is based on the number of viewers and so if you have
more viewers than the typical household then they can reasonably
expect you to pay a premium subscription. But that's a business
matter, and still nothing to do with PRS.

It is everything to do with PRS/MCPS as they are the appointed agents for
the collection of copyright for thousands and thousands of owners.

No, it isn't. PRS/MCPS have no say in Sky's commercial arrangements
with their customers. All that MCPS/PRS do is charge Sky a fee to use
material that they administer.

I would be inclined to tell PRS where to go. The only "right" that a
PRS licence confers is the right not to be harrassed by the PRS. As
such, it's not all that far from being a protection racket.

http://www.mcps-prs-alliance.co.uk/D...and%20Bars.pdf

So? It's in the interests of MCPS and PRS to maximise their own
income. Of course they're going to tell people they need a licence for
music played on their premises. The fact that such a demand is barely,
if at all, enforceable is neither here nor there. The fees charged by
PRS and MCPS have no basis in law (unlike, say, the TV licence); they
are merely what MCPS/PRS feel they can get away with. There's no
logical reason why the price of a karaoke licence is different to that
of a CD player, and both are different to the price charged for having
a radio on in the pub. MCPS and PRS don't even guarantee that the fees
paid will actually get to the artists whose music is being played - if
a pub plays mostly indie or esoteric stuff, then their PRS/MCPS fees
won't benefit the artists they play, it will mostly end up going to
the big-name record labels (who in turn often won't pass that on to
their artists either).

Incidentally, this document makes no mention of the additional fee
demanded by the PRS agent for having Sky, as opposed to any other form
of TV, in the pub (as stated by the OP).

Only if you wish to risk being sued by copyright owners.....

Has anyone ever been sued by the copyright holder in such a situation?

Mark
--
Visit: http://www.OrangeHedgehog.com - Useful stuff for the web
"L'amore giunger, l'amore"

On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 20:10:13 +0000, Don Aitken put finger to keyboard
and typed:

On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 08:05:03 +0000, Mark Goodge
wrote:

Even for a normal TV or radio, there's no moral reason why you should
be required to pay. The broadcaster is already paying for the right to
broadcast the music, and it makes no difference to them whether the
audience consists of a hundred different receivers each listened to by
one person or one receiver in a pub listened to by a hundred people.

It make no difference to the broadcaster, but it makes a difference to
the owner of the rights.

In what way?

Sky (and other subscription channels) are slightly different, as their
business model is based on the number of viewers and so if you have
more viewers than the typical household then they can reasonably
expect you to pay a premium subscription. But that's a business
matter, and still nothing to do with PRS.

It is to do with PRS because they act on behalf of the person who is
entitled to licence public performance of the music. A TV in a pub is
providing a public performance. Who the broadcaster is, and who has
paid them for what, makes no difference at all. It is the publican,
not the broadcaster, who is providing the performance to the public.
Broadcast rights, which the broadcaster pays for, are something
entirely different.

You misunderstand me. I'm saying that Sky have a right to charge pub
owners more than ordinary householders for their services, because
they are selling something that's based on viewer eyeballs. PRS aren't
taking any account of audience figures, so their charges shouldn't
differ according to whether it's an individual listeners or several.


I would be inclined to tell PRS where to go. The only "right" that a
PRS licence confers is the right not to be harrassed by the PRS. As
such, it's not all that far from being a protection racket.

I take it you are not a songwriter?

Yes, actually, not that that's relevant in this context.

Mark
--
Visit: http://www.ukcommunityradio.info - Community Radio in the UK
"When your thoughts are too expensive to ever want to keep"

"Alasdair" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 10:05:03 +0000, "Peter Crosland"
wrote:

So the PRS are correct and will take legal action if the publican
does not have a licence.

Why can PRS take legal action if they are merely agents for the
copyright owner? A company cannot atuhorise an agent to take legal
action on its behalf unless that agent is a solicitor. That's why debt
collectors cannot sue as agents for the creditor; the creditor has to
use a solicitor if he wishes to sue in the court.

From http://www.ncdc.gov.uk/media/adobe/0...a_Glance_1.pdf

"What if I don't obtain a PRS Music Licence?

If customers or employees of a business are listening to
copyright music on your premises, you have a legal obligation
to obtain a PRS Music Licence.

Failure or refusal to obtain a PRS Music Licence may lead to
the copyright owner taking legal action against you for
copyright infringement and you may become liable to pay
damages and costs."

Nick

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 13:05:02 +0000, "Nick"
wrote:

From http://www.ncdc.gov.uk/media/adobe/0...a_Glance_1.pdf

"What if I don't obtain a PRS Music Licence?

If customers or employees of a business are listening to
copyright music on your premises, you have a legal obligation
to obtain a PRS Music Licence.

Failure or refusal to obtain a PRS Music Licence may lead to
the copyright owner taking legal action against you for
copyright infringement and you may become liable to pay
damages and costs."

Nick

Ah, but it is the copyright owner who has to take the legal action,
not PRS. I wonder which musician or singer or composer would initiate
legal proceedings with all the potential costs involved?

--
Alasdair.

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 23:50:02 +0000, Alasdair
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 13:05:02 +0000, "Nick"
wrote:

From http://www.ncdc.gov.uk/media/adobe/0...a_Glance_1.pdf

"What if I don't obtain a PRS Music Licence?

If customers or employees of a business are listening to
copyright music on your premises, you have a legal obligation
to obtain a PRS Music Licence.

Failure or refusal to obtain a PRS Music Licence may lead to
the copyright owner taking legal action against you for
copyright infringement and you may become liable to pay
damages and costs."

Nick

Ah, but it is the copyright owner who has to take the legal action,
not PRS. I wonder which musician or singer or composer would initiate
legal proceedings with all the potential costs involved?

I imagine it would be a record company. They are the copyright holders
of most recorded performances, and have deeper pockets to sue with.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
If you have to ask what jazz is, you'll never know.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 01:40:04 +0000, Alex Heney wrote...
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 23:50:02 +0000, Alasdair
wrote:

Ah, but it is the copyright owner who has to take the legal action,
not PRS. I wonder which musician or singer or composer would initiate
legal proceedings with all the potential costs involved?

I imagine it would be a record company. They are the copyright holders
of most recorded performances, and have deeper pockets to sue with.

Or a music industry organisation such as the BPI (British Phonographic
Industry). They take action on behalf of their record company members.
I doubt if it would be the PRS - their responsibility is to collect
licence fees and pass them on to the copyright owners.

In a civil case instigated by a representative body such as the BPI,
typically the claimants named would be a group of their record company
members. Depending on the outcome of a current government consultation,
there might eventually be a change in the law to allow such a
representative body to take action in its own name.

See http://tinyurl.com/wru9m (which leads to the Patent Office
webpage about the consultation).

--
Tim Jackson
lid
(Change '.invalid' to '.com' to reply direct)

On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 09:50:04 +0000, Graham Murray
wrote:

"mark" writes:

....They don't. Largely, of course, we are talking about a 'public' place
which means just that. LargelyEntry by the public means entry by the PRS
representative.
Of course they do not have rights of entry....

On the other hand, a pub landlord has the right to exclude entry to
anyone he wishes (subject to discrimination laws).

even someone from the local weights and measures? fire brigade?
Customs & Excise? What about H&S ? Local council? are you really that
certain?